Sooden has thanked all those who helped him and acknowledged the burden his family carried. He said he believed a ransom was paid to secure his release from captivity and that the operation felt contrived. He said the primary reason for his presence in Iraq was to bear witness to the suffering of the local people. "Although we were held captive for 118 days all of Iraq is a prison. Iraqis must endure daily violence and insecurity. They carry fear and uncertainty about the future. Our captors too are prisoners of this circumstance."

So members of the military risk their lives to save his pathetic life and he feels it was contrived and he believes his captors are prisoners of circumstances. I imagine he finds it easier to forgive his captors for killing his fellow hostage, Tom Fox, than he does to forgive coalition forces for dealing with Hussein. Serious adults should pay no attention to idiots like this guy who are unable to make moral distinctions between his murderous captors and those who wasted their efforts to save him.

Speaking of Hussein, here aretwo articles to be read and shared. Shared particularly with people who are looking at negative reporting of the situation in Iraq and forgetting it would be much worse if we had continued to ignore the problem. Two things we should not let the media ignore and pretend weren't the case. One is the fact that Saddam was reconstituting his WMD programs and actively trying to obtain materials to build nuclear weapons. The other is the fact that his was a totalitarian regime and the entire population was abused under his rule. Those who ignore those facts are revisionist historians of the worst sort.

Actor Charlie Sheen has slammed critics for hitting out at him for his controversial opinions on the 9/11 terror attacks. Sheen appeared on a radio talk show saying he had trouble believing the official story from the Bush administration. He says: 'I just had a lot of questions. I got attacked. It was sad because they didn't really take a look at any of the stuff I was asking them to look at, any of the evidence, or any of the stuff that generated those questions. '... but I think, what happened to a time in this country when we had a constitutional and a god given right to be curious about things that didn't make sense?'

Sheen, guess what dummy? We still have a Constitution and you still have a right to say stupid stuff. However, that right does not mean you will not be criticized for saying stupid stuff. That apple didn't fall very far from the family tree.

Another example of Democrats wanting to have both sides of an issue is discussed in this article, Finding Religion - Democrats try to talk like God-fearing folk. Just so everyone understands if a conservative acknowledges that their faith helps form their position on an issue they are pushing for a theocracy. However, liberals can cite faith to push environmental legislation and ignore their faith on life and death matters and still call themselves "good Catholics." Must be nice to know the media will not challenge their hypocrisy.